Arpaio Pardon Clearest Sign Yet U.S. Is Close To Becoming A Police State

Joshua M. Patton
Aug 28, 2017 · 5 min read

Please help fund my independent work: https://www.paypal.me/joshuampatton

President Donald Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio came right before a hurricane, with the the White House hoping the roar of Hurricane Harvey and the wails of his victims drowned out the sound of the U.S. sliding further and further into the authoritarian nightmare that libertarian friend of yours always warned was coming.

There are a number of good arguments that suggest that Arpaio is a racist man. While this makes him repugnant, it is not what makes him a criminal. Arpaio is also a staunch supporter of President Trump’s, from as far back as the 2012 birther phase of his political career. Trump praised Arpaio for sending investigators to Hawaii to look for Obama’s birth certificate. This shows that Arpaio has questionable judgment, but this, also, isn’t what made him a criminal.

No, what made him a criminal was Arpaio’s use of the power granted to him by the people of Maricopa County, Arizona to systematically violate the constitutional rights of his inmates and the people he was sworn to protect. After being ordered to stop his criminal acts, he defied the federal judge and was found guilty of contempt of court.

As is typical when it comes to defending the blatant and bungling efforts of President Trump, most people are forced to stick it to “the libs” by resorting to whataboutism. “What about Bill Clinton pardoning his brother for a cocaine charge?” or “What about President Obama pardoning Chelsea Manning?” (Though, Manning was not pardoned, but merely her sentence was commuted.)

However, neither of those cases are relevant to the Arpaio matter. Instead, what is most noteworthy about this travesty is what President Trump is signaling about his use of the power of the presidential pardon. He is announcing to all of those who are as loyal as Joe Arpaio — meaning, totally — if they flout the law, they will never have to answer for it.

To be fair, whenever anyone writing about American politics talks about “a police state” or “authoritarianism,” it usually is done with a fair amount of poetic license. Yet, the pardon of Arpaio — before the man had even exhausted all of his appeals — shows that as far as Trump is concerned those charged with upholding the law can also be above it.

A viral Twitter thread from the Phoenix New Times detailed much of their coverage of Arpaio, specifically his offenses against civil rights and, arguably, civil decency.

He did not seek to rehabilitate his inmates, but rather humiliate them. He made a game of people’s mugshots and boasted of forcing his inmates to wear pink underwear. These inmates sweltered in the heat, forced to live in a tent city that Arpaio gleefully called a “concentration camp.” He even made a joke of segregating Hispanic prisoners behind an electrified fence.

Inmates suffered under his care, which was also arguably Arpaio’s goal, seemingly to spite the Eighth Amendment. His guards beat a paraplegic prisoner who asked for a catheter. Inmates went without medical care, including at least one female inmate who lost her baby. Some simply fell victim to the elements in Arizona, forced to languish in the heat. Suicides in his prisons skyrocketed.

Of course, no authoritarian would be complete if he were not also violating the First Amendment as well. He arrested New Times reporters for covering his activities and cost the taxpayers $3.75 million in a single settlement. (He’s actually cost the taxpayers a lot more than that.) Also, while under investigation, tried to destroy evidence that the court ordered him to hand over. Stunningly, President Trump (and his supporters) aren’t as concerned about his hard drives are they are about the hard drives of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The interesting thing about President Trump’s pardon, is that along with being nakedly political it’s also probably legal, at least on the surface. The framers of the constitution deliberately left the power of the presidency vague, but inserted impeachment as a way to curb that power. While in the modern context, impeachment is seen as as the recourse to punish the president should he commit a crime. But some believe that the deliberate misuse of legal presidential powers also meet the bar of high-crimes and misdemeanors.

Frank Bowman details this argument for Slate (emphasis his):

The pardon of Arpaio plainly falls within this core conception of properly impeachable offenses.

It is an impeachable offense precisely because it involves the exercise of a constitutionally created presidential power.

The use of the pardon power in this case is a direct assault on core constitutional rights, statutory civil rights laws of the United States, and the authority of courts to enforce those laws.

It therefore threatens constitutional civil liberties generally, as well as the viability of congressionally authorized statutory law, and it is a direct attack on the constitutional powers of the judiciary as a coordinate branch of government.

Accordingly, this pardon threatens to undercut one of the indispensable, foundational norms of American constitutional order: the rule of law.

While this may sound like the whinging of liberal lawyerly types, it’s far more serious than that. The ability to hold those in power — from the president to the country sheriff — accountable for the misuse of that power is why there hasn’t been more armed conflict between the citizens and the government.

Even the Founders themselves didn’t take up arms against King George immediately. The first meeting of the Continental Congress (then known as the Stamp Act Congress) was not to declare independence, but rather to voice their grievances directly to the king since they had no representation in parliament. For their trouble, they were all declared traitors, and now we’re in this mess.

The rule of law is already out-of-balance when it comes to law enforcement officers. While it’s already illegal to assault someone, it’s “extra illegal” to assault a police officer. When it comes to murders, two-thirds of them are solved by police and the murderer faces judicial punishment. When it comes to police shootings, only 35 percent of police face conviction (at least from 2005–2015).

There is a lot of nuance in those statistics, but they serve as a reminder that to some it can appear as if the police are already above the law. If the system targets and punishes the average citizen, but not those with power why would they continue to try to work in that system? While this is what gave birth to the United States, it most often ends in a failed state and even more suffering for the people.

There may still be one branch of government that can weigh in on this misuse of power, and that’s the United States Supreme Court. It’s unclear how they will respond to what is clearly a threat to both citizens’ rights and judicial independence. Yet, even if they were to try to rule against the president’s pardon of Arpaio, there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t just defy the order.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Please help to support my independent reporting and analysis, if you can, by donating a few dollars to feed the writer. You’ll have my deepest gratitude and can even suggest what sorts of stories or topics you’d like me to cover.

)
Joshua M. Patton

Written by

Managing editor at ComicYears.com. Entertainment, culture, politics, essays & lots of Star Wars. Like my work? Buy me a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/O5O0GR

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade